Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Clerk of Court
v.
GONZALO GOMEZ-OLIVAS, a/k/a
Anthony M. Flores,
Defendant - Appellant.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
U.S.C. 3582(c), R. Doc. 429, which was denied as moot on February 23, 2009,
R. Doc. 434. He now appeals that denial, arguing that he is entitled to a
modification of his sentence pursuant to guideline amendments 591[] & 599. 1 R.
Doc. 436 at 1.
Mr. Gomez-Olivas has moved for leave to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of costs or fees. In order to succeed on his motion, he must show a
financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1); McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Commn, 115 F.3d
809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Gomez-Olivas cannot meet that standard given
that his second motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 3582(c) is plainly
successive and foreclosed by circuit precedent. As the district court held, Mr.
Gomez-Olivass sentence was not based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2), but rather was the product of a stipulated plea agreement and
therefore does not qualify for a reduction. R. Doc. 412 at 2-4; see United States
v. Trujeque, 100 F.3d 869, 871 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gage, 315 F.
Appx 48, 48-49 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished); United States v. Gonzales, 308
F. Appx 251, 252 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished); see also United States v.
Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275, 280-82 (3rd Cir. 2009); United States v. Scurlark, 560
F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peveler, 359 F.3d 369, 377-79
(6th Cir. 2004). But see United States v. Dews, 551 F.3d 204, 209-12 (4th Cir.
2008), en banc rehg granted (Feb. 20, 2009). To the extent that he is raising
other sentencing issues, Mr. Gomez-Olivas would be required to apply for and
receive certification of any second or successive 2255 motion before
proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) (requiring either newly discovered
evidence or a new rule of constitutional law before this court can certify a
second or successive 2255 motion).
APPEAL DISMISSED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED.
-4-